• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

English 101 For Gun Advocates.

Feynman Lives!

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 15, 2021
Messages
1,326
Reaction score
453
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
I wrote a series of posts a long time ago for another site, hoping to get serious posters to comment on the facts here included. This is the first in the series. I would like to try it on this one.

The SCOTUS Heller decision is the Law of the Land. However, it uses linguistic and historical arguments that have been rebutted by the most prominent Linguists and Historians in the country. This particular post is purely about the linguistic STRUCTURE of the 2nd A. Scalia got those arguments wrong. And here is why

The first part (before the 2nd comma) of the 2nd A is called in linguistics an Absolute. Scalia calls it the "prefatory clause". I don't want the discussion to devolve in one about semantics. For that reason only, let's use the terminology that Scalia made up.

In English, when the verb in a prefatory clause ends in -ing, there is a causal relation between it and the main clause when the verb is stative (denotes state, and not action). In other words, the prefatory clause is a necessary CAUSE of the main clause. Always!!!

Example 1
"The ship having docked into the port, the passengers can embark"
or (same meaning)
"Because the ship has docked into the port, the passengers can embark"
Which, to any English speaker, means that the passengers cannot embark (main clause), if the ship hasn't docked into the port (prefatory clause)

Example 2
"Standing on a chair, John can reach the ceiling"
or (same meaning)
"Because John is standing on a chair, he can reach the ceiling"
Which, to any English speaker, means that John cannot reach the ceiling (main clause), if he doesn't stand on a chair (prefatory clause)

Example 3
"Books being necessary for the students to complete the project, the Library shall not close"
or (same meaning)
"Because books are necessary.... , the Library cannot close"
Which, to any English speaker, means that the Library can close (main clause), as soon as the books are not necessary for the students to complete the project (prefatory clause).

Example 4
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."
or (same meaning)
"Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
Which, to any English speaker, means that he right of the people to keep and bear arms can be infringed (main clause) when a Militia is no longer necessary to the security of a free State.

I should clarify that this is not mine. I am taking the explanation from several sources, including the Amicus Brief that was submitted by some of the country's leading linguist before the Heller decision. https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/07-290_amicus_linguists1.pdf There are several other sources from more linguists that were published after the decision to show why Scalia's linguistic arguments were wrong.

Also, the purpose of this thread is ONLY to show that Scalia's arguments were wrong. Whether the whole Heller decision was wrong will be for the reader to decide. But that Scalia was wrong about THIS particular point should be clear..
 

You were doing so well, right up to this point, where you made a totally baseless leap of logic.

What it actually means is what your terminology for the introductory phrase indicates: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State is not a conditional statement. It's an "absolute."
 
Ugh this type of arguing is precisely why lawyer speak is terrible
 

You assume that the single reason given is exhaustive.
 
Specifically, this is where the logic falls apart. The operative clause ("the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed") is independent of the prefatory clause ("A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,"). The two clauses are related, however they are not dependent on each other.

Feynman Lives! said:
. . . . Also, the purpose of this thread is ONLY to show that Scalia's arguments were wrong. . . .
Click to expand...
I disagree that Scalia's arguments are wrong. The Founding Fathers wanted citizens to be armed - there is no question about that.

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms." - Thomas Jefferson
Feynman Lives! said:
Whether the whole Heller decision was wrong will be for the reader to decide. But that Scalia was wrong about THIS particular point should be clear..
Click to expand...
The purpose Second Amendment was to tell Lawmakers (Congress) that infringements on the Right to keep and bear Arms are STRICLTLY PROHIBITED.

Here's a less ambiguous wording of the Second Amendment:

Infringements on the Right to keep and bear Arms are STRICLTLY PROHIBITED.

That removes any guesswork, and misinterpretations.
 
Feynman Lives! said:
I wrote a series of posts a long time ago for another site, hoping to get serious posters to comment on the facts here included. This is the first in the series. I would like to try it on this one.
Click to expand...
"The ship having docked into the port, the passengers can embark"

That means the passengers can embark. It doesn't mean the ship can embark.

"Standing on a chair, John can reach the ceiling"

That means John can reach the ceiling. It doesn't mean the chair can reach the ceiling.

"Books being necessary for the students to complete the project, the Library shall not close"

That means the Library shall not close. It doesn't mean books shall not close.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

That means the right of the people shall not be infringed. It doesn't mean the right of people in the militia shall not be infringed.
 

QED: the 2nd Amendment gives ONE and only ONE justification to bear arms.
 
there is a reason the other site didn't engage much

that was drabble

but for fun use all the other Constitutional Rights and do it to them to
 
Not sure I understand what you're saying. My argument is purely linguistic. And this grammatical structure is called an "Absolute" or "Absolute construction". It is one in which the absolute clause "A well regulate Militia bein necessary..." is the REASON for the main clause "the right to keep and bear arms" to not be infringed.

From a purely linguistic POV the absolute clause is the cause of the main clause.

That's all I'm saying. There might be OTHER reasons for the right to keep and bear arms to not be infringed. But the 2nd A makes no reference of them. And to not recognize this was Scalia's error.
 
They're not dependent on "each other". The absolute (or prefatory) clause is simply the cause of the main clause.


SkyChief said:
I disagree that Scalia's arguments are wrong. The Founding Fathers wanted citizens to be armed - there is no question about that.
Click to expand...
No doubt. But the 2nd A doesn't address that. We will get to the historical errors (none of which has to do with what you point out) in Scalia's decision in another thread. This one is only about the linguistic structure.
 
Following your logic, the last part would be "it doesn't mean the militia can't be infringed."

And it doesn't. Not the point.

The point is that having docked, standing on a chair, the books being necessary and a well regulated miliitia being necessary are ALL the cause of what follows.
 
stealthycat said:
there is a reason the other site didn't engage much
Click to expand...
Who says they didn't engage? There are four threads on the topic (three more to come). Two (including this one) about linguistic aspects, two about the historical background. Each has over 60 pages of posts with over a thousand comments each including many made by attorneys, historians, philologists, ....

THIS one and the ones that will follow include several corrections (quite a few, actually) that are not in the original. These corrections were mostly because of the input of professionals in those fields.
 
So, how do interpret the founder's intent based on the first draft:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.


Two separate issues:
1) The individual right of the people to keep and bear arms.
2) The necessity of a militia but emphasizing the fact that there was a religious exemption.
 
The Founding Fathers wanted Americans to be able to kill multiple people within a minute?

Right.

On it's face your claim of strict prohibition is false.
 
mrjurrs said:
The Founding Fathers wanted Americans to be able to kill multiple people within a minute?

Right.

On it's face your claim of strict prohibition is false.
Click to expand...
Well, private individuals could own cannon and even warships at the time of the nation's founding.
 
mrjurrs said:
The Founding Fathers wanted Americans to be able to kill multiple people within a minute?
Click to expand...
I plainly stated:

SkyChief said:
The Founding Fathers wanted citizens to be armed - there is no question about that.
Click to expand...

So you now ask if the Founding Fathers wanted Americans to be able to kill multiple people within a minute?

That's completely nonsensical question. LOL.
mrjurrs said:
On it's face your claim of strict prohibition is false.
Click to expand...
No, it's 100% true. The four words "shall not be infringed" mean exactly that. If the Founders had wanted lawmakers to have the power to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms, then certainly they would not have written the last four words.

The Founders intended for citizens to be armed. They also were very clear that not only Militia had the right to be armed.


"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samuel Adams
 
Wouldn't a well regulated militia always be needed for the security of a free state?
 
First point - the term prefatory clause is not made up. It is used in legal circles, I'm reading a Harvard Law Review article on the topic right now and the term "prefatory clause" is used extensively.

It isn't a linguistic argument, or at least not solely one. You have to look at the usage in law at the time the amendment was drafted. Scalia's point was that prefatory clauses were used at the time of the drafting to give an example justification. They were not interpreted as the sole justification for the operative clause.

And common sense should bear this out. Early America was a frontier society. People away from
cities used firearms to hunt for food, deal with pests and self defense and yet none of these common uses are enumerated in the prefatory clause.
 
Last edited:
That's a long winded attempt to try and say that only the militia can have guns.

The problem your linguist didn't resolve is who makes up the militia. That's the citizens.

If you ignore other documents and other rulings it makes it easier to save citizens aren't guaranteed the right to own guns but if you look at the militia act you realize who the militia is and your linguist and yourself have walked in a great big circle a logical loop.


The need that have firearms is for the militia. The militia being a militia and not a military different words have different meanings only ever forms when it's needed. Every other time when it's not needed it's just the people the neighborhood chiropractor construction workers dentists so forth.

So in order for the militia which is the citizens to have regulations such as armor firearms ammunition first aid all the sorts of things you would need ordinary citizens have to own it.

Is centralized government cannot command this militia strictly because the likelihood of that centralized government being the intermediate faces is higher than anything else being in the enemy it faces.
 
JMB1911A1 said:
Well, private individuals could own cannon and even warships at the time of the nation's founding.
Click to expand...
Since SCOTUS has defined arms as "weapons of offense" or "things that a man wears for his defense, or takes into his hands" your attempt to include cannon or warships is nonsensical.
 
Your interpretation, not the legal one.

Source your claim that the founders meant an individual right. That was a bad interpretation by SCOTUS, not in the Constitution.
 
Yes. A militia being necessary for the security of a free state is why the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed if you infringe upon it you can't have a militia.

The militia is the citizens. Every lawful gun owner in the US is the militia. Every person that wants to purchase a firearm but never has is the militia.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…